Valadictum

I never had a go at Great Battles from SSI, I was never a DOS man. But yes, a physical convoy icon could be a target of surface raiders and be very vulnerable to them unless there's a nearby friendly fleet unit. Defence vs subs and air could be improved with research but would need to start off very poor

If the war in the Atlantic is going to be made more integral to the game then its needs to be more than having slow hexes and fast hexes, it needs to be a battle of wits between two players. This would mean removing the automatic GB loses 10MMP because a German sub is sitting on a trade route and replace this with actual shipping units that are partially automated. E.G Britain builds a merchant shipping convoy, representative of a convoy forming, for 100MMP, and this has defenses against subs and AA representative of escorts. These, once in a British port, dump 50MMP into the usable kitty and then automatically reappear back in a distant port (Alexandria, Canada or America) and start their way towards Britain with another 50MMP. There's an automatic route these convys follow that can be varied if the allied player thinks there are UBoats in the area. One convoy could potentially be attacked several times until its been destroyed or only a fraction of it actually reached the UK. Considering map issues, Med convoys for French and Italians should be possible (and attackable by opposing player)but Murmansk would have to wait until SC2. This should still be strategic and not too tactical as its no different than moving or retreating armies.

Problem with O'Conner, though I'm a fan of his efforts in North Africa, is that the size of forces involved were small, he had about 30,000 Brits/Indians/Aussies etc against 130,000+ Italians (fair odds I think!). There's no way of knowing what he's be like in charge of a well equipped force of 500,000 against a well equipped enemy of similar capability. When he escaped/was freed from being an Italian POW (I seem to remember a story about how he escaped in womens clothes)he was felt to be too behind the times and was given only a division to command. As for Slim - I think he was ideal for the job he had to do and if the war against Japan had gone on (no nukes)he'd have been in China from the South eventually - perhaps preventing communist China from taking hold. Maybe the nukes were a mistake afterall? (sorry for speculation heaven on steroids). I don't think Slim would have been well suited for a European theatre though.

General Slim should be a candidate. He stopped the western advance of the Japanese and then went back in to kick them out. You don't hear much about him but he did a fine job.

Air Units I thought I’d expand on a theory of air conflict in a possible SC2, based on air wings of different types, air groups, air fleets and air HQ units. The base unit is an air wing consisting of 4 squadrons of 12 aircraft, thus 48 aircraft. Early in the conflict each nation only has certain air wings available, but with research and improving practice, more become available and each nation has certain advantages (auto + 1 in experience and reduced cost) with certain types of air wing. This might encourage sides to play to their strengths without making it impossible to use the broad spectrum of available wings. Different air wings will also come with different costs based on the aircraft technology available, the development of a war economy etc. Each air wing has a named commander of historical background who will be provided with random stats that also affect the overall effectiveness of the wing with morale and readiness. These commanders will gain or lose “tactical” experience depending on the combat situations they are in. Wings can only be deployed in combat when part of an air group or air fleet, but as groups and fleets are broken up, changed etc, the wings don’t have to stay in the same one all the time. Tactical experience depends on whether a wing belonging to a higher unit is used offensively or defensively, the experience in these fields gained (or lost) then remains with the wing commander. Once a commander has enough experience he will go on the list of commanders available for promotion, then when a new higher unit is formed and no existing or more capable higher officer is available (weed out the incompetents or unlucky) the wing commander is promoted and replaced automatically by a new wing commander. To use air wings in a strategic level situation, they have to be grouped into higher units, either an air group or an air fleet. To recruit air wings the player need to go to a build menu in an appropriate capital city and either select an existing Air Group or Air Fleet type, composed of air wings, or create a unique group or fleet of the players own. Air groups, commanded by a promoted wing commander called a Group Commander, can contain between 2 and 4 air wings of different types. Group commanders will either have a balanced range of experience, or will either lean towards offence or defence. This can affect the air wings that he commands depending on whether the air group is used offensively or to protect territory. Air Groups can thus contain up to 192 aircraft or as few as 48. Air fleets, commanded by a Vice Air Marshall, a promoted Group Commander (not promoted directly from wing commander), can contain between 5 and 8 air wings (240 to 384 aircraft). An Air Vice Marshall who has gained enough experience can then be promoted to full Air Marshall and becomes a strategic HQ unit for air power, affecting air power only. Possible base air wings might be: Interceptor (short range, fast reaction, less effective as other types improve, but can be improved with radar research etc and are able to intercept both fighters and bombers), Air-superiority (longer range use but with penalties until long range research reaches improved levels, thus at a disadvantage against interceptors until later in the game, are able to make direct attacks on enemy air units and can escort bombers), Fighter-bomber (medium range and intended for co-operation with ground forces and start more as air superiority fighter standards with light bombing capability, but the bombing capability improves with research faster than their fighter capability, operating primarily at lower altitudes these aircraft don’t have blanket penalties against interceptors, but these grow the longer the range involved, but they have penalties against air superiority fighters only ameliorated by research and can protect themselves if attacked by fighters and make ground attacks against enemy ground forces), Night-fighter (bomber attacks have a % chance of avoiding interceptors on the assumption some bombers have attacked at night, night-fighter wings reduce this % chance and keep it manageable). Heavy bombers (long range, expensive and assumed to be 4 engine bombers so have to be researched; excellent against ships and strategic targets, weak if intercepted though this can be improved and there’s a % chance that grows with relevant research for avoiding interception on the assumption of night attacks), Medium bombers (assumed to be 2/3 engine bombers and don’t do anything like the damage of heavy bombers or have the same range, but they are cheaper to buy and maintain, are more restricted in what they can attack than heavies but can fly in closer formation than heavy bombers so have a better defence against interceptors, especially if escorted by having an air superiority wing in the same group or fleet, but are more vulnerable to AA fire from the ground), Light bombers (assumed to be light 2 engine bombers that will have an ASW role, an anti shipping role, a recce role and other light attack roles and have a better attack on ground units than fighter-bombers but are more vulnerable to enemy fighters. Disbanding an Air Group or Air Fleet does not destroy the wings contained within. These are returned to a pool in the nearest friendly city or port and from there they can be reformed into larger units that can be deployed, returned to the mother country (where they can also be re-deployed) or sold. Moving wings in the pool is cost free, unlike “operating” deployed units, but when pooled wings are re deployed into groups or fleets, they take several turns to reach full readiness and supply. In WWII the different character of each nation’s air force played a significant role in what each nation did well and did badly, at both strategic and tactical levels. A structure such as or similar in effect as above might allow this aspect to filter through into SC2 and research will further increase the differences between sides, changing the nature of the air war in every game. Similar approaches could be taken with ground forces and naval units, though the approach can be squeezed or further expanded as suits. I suppose there is a whole raft of ideas buried in this, so extract from it whatever’s useful and dump whatever’s not strategic enough. It won’t offend me as we all have different priorities in what we’d like to see and as HC has done a fantastic job with SC I’m sure whatever he does with SC2 will be even better.

Hi folks, I've been quiet for a while, thought I'd speak up rather than just lurking. Hmmm, one of the old ideas I had (maybe rehashed, can't remember)was to: Design your own style of army corps/armies from a range of available division types that changes with research. These would materially impact the mobility and firepower of unit types to make radically different games especially when playing against another human opponent. This could be combined with promotable generals of army corps who gain experience and can be turned into an army commander and eventually an HQ unit with ratings that are made by the game you are playing. This would mean not having to rely on a set list of HQ units apart from a few at the start and it would mean you can't afford to just use corps for garrison work, or you limit your future HQ commanders when you need them.

Probably my weak math but if you have 1 research in a field this gives you 5% chance per turn to advance. If you have 5 points in a field, is this really a 25% chance per turn or 5 separate 5% chances? The odds of success in the latter would surely be lower?

Great news and congratulations. Looking forward to turning Dieppe into a full blown counter invasion when Axis back is turned!

How far in the future is the future?

Same here, I use XP too and the icon is invisible. Perhaps an intelligence test?

I tried CofS in XP. I didn't get a memory problem, I got a graphics card problem. I've got the latest in G4's! Too new I guess. CofS deleted and disposed of. I wait with great anticipation for SC. Go Hubert go!!!!!!

I can't believe I just posted that! Pleeese give us a clue on release date?? :confused:

Hmmmm! New thread on Chess 2 required? :cool: I'd suggest a cross shaped board for a 4 player game in which you can attack the player opposite and to your right, but not the player to your left. It would be a world where no-one could trust no-one where you run from people you can't hit and they hunt you down, while you attack the others! Any other ideas?

Hmm, I've come to have a great deal of fun bashing the Italian fleet with the French. I might lose a couple of French ships but it means there's a French unit on the board that actually achieves something. Attacks on ports are necessary as without the carrier attack on Taranto there may never have been a Pearl Harbour and the USA may never have joined the war. :confused: I guess the USA have to blame the Brits for Pearl Harbour?

hmm, what a shame, I'll have to put my guitar away.

Are any of the Beta Boys actually girls? Just curious. Now I've got to practice that old seranade croon and I may find out when the release date will be!

This is all very unfortunate as its not just Huberts parade thats potentially been tarnished, but the hard work from the beta testers (or Beta Boys as someone's named them)too. This is like finding a fly in your porridge. This is a GREAT GAME and I hope the bad behaviour of one person hasn't ruined it for everyone. Hubert and the people at Battlefront have all my best wishes.

Does anyone remember what happened in 1944. It would be cool of the game had a random "Hitler's been assassinated" effect which improves German unit efficiency by 20% if Hitler dies. Also if the assassination fails, then you lose Rommel and perhaps some others as available HQ's and all units lose 20% efficiency. What would have been the effect on Germany if Hitler had been assassinated?

Which goes back to something I was thinking about a while ago, allow any nation (allied or axis) that need to get MMP from overseas to home before they can be used to set up physical convoy routes as a costed item on the map, rather than generic ones. Any submarine that is within x hex of one of one of the convoy routes has a chance to detect convoys on it and attack. Equally the generic convoy escorts have a chance to spot the submarine and to defend the convoy. Once the submarine is spotted either a cruiser group can attack the submarine is within range, or the nation owning the convoy can pay to re-route the convoy route in an effort to protect the next 2 or 3 turns of convoy's, until the subs find it again. Improved sonar research will increase the protection of convoys, the ability to detect the subs and the ability of cruisers to strike at subs. Improved sub research will improve the range at which sub units can detect and attack convoys, avoid detection and evade attack by cruisers when they have been detected. Just an idea to solve the unreality problem of naval warfarea t the moment, though no disrespect to Hubert as I can't wait to buy the game whatever its like. I'm sold!

I've been reading some previous threads and from what I've seen some people want to see deployable divisions and others want to stay at corps and army level. But I don't see why it isn't possible to acheive both in a way that will benefit the game, especially PBEM. I think the game should still be played at the higher level, but behind the units each could be constructed from available divisions. Have a number of division types available to each playable nation/side, E.G standard units like Infantry Division, Motorised Division, Mechanised Division etc. New types of division become available when appropriate research is done. To play the game you'd need to create your corps or army from the available division types. When you then buy a corps or army its of the current type. Once a year a side should be able to change the design of their new corps and armies (by spending MMP)and can upgrade exisiting units (also by spending MMP) to the new standard. The game would still be played at corps and army level, but it would be possible to see the divisions each of these contain. Divisions could then have officers that could be promoted to corp level command, based on experience and corp commanders could be promoted to army command and army commanders to group commanders. I can't help thinking this would add an extra dimension to PBEM, or against the AI. What do people think?

Probably too late to make it into this game but maybe SCII? 1) Instead of using turns to simulate seasons, pehaps apply weather banding that effects Action Points and the ability to reinforce. E.G Europe = Temporate with some reduced abilities in winter, Russia = almost no movement in winter with Russians having some advantages, it being their home country and all, Africa/middle east = Dusty climate when movement is best in Winter months but only slightly reduced in the heat of summer and if you get to a Global Game, Canada could be like Russia, America could be like Europe and the Far East/Pacific would slow everything down in the monsoon season almost to the extent that the Russian Winter does. 2) Which leads on to the above smoothing out MMP to regular weekly doses and might even allow real time in the form of Star Wars Rebellion/Supremacy style. 3)resources don't just provide MMP. Armies depended on oil for movement so apply penalties if you don't control oil fields (the Brits will need help here unless you can show the Nigerian oil fields)and mines effect supplies by redcing the supply rating of a city of you don't control a mine. This should make resources a much more strategic asset that can punish players who don't defend them. In a Pacific/Global theatre Japan would need the East Indies oil. 4) Allow allies to declare war on the Russians and side with the Germans instead in 1945 (I think Patton wanted to do this?). 5) extend the game to allow play into the 1950's but to represent war exhaustion start reducing the MMP each country gets from 1946 onwards. 6)The British Empire was far vaster than the French and I don't think this is represented well at the moment. Given limits to map size though and the requirements of play balance I'm not sure what you could do. In a Global game something would need to be done incl allowing the recruitment of Indian, Anzac Etc troops locally. 7) declining research - I.E for the 1st 250 MMP you get 5% chance, 2nd 250MMP you get 4% etc. All comments welcome.

Having trashed France and the Low countries I prepared for the invasion of England. Major mistake in preparation, when I ordered the transports to move I had Manstein and Rundstedt, 6 armies, 6 corps and 3 tank corps. On landing I had nowhere to put everything and some transports had to sit offshore and that was while my navy went beserk in the North Sea to protect them and aircraft in the South to threaten the Royal Navy there. In the end I had real trouble getting all ashore simply because it was too crowded, but they'd all taken damage. My naval attack was a great success though, coming out through the Baltic Straits with a sub, the two cruisers and my nice shiny new battleship Bismark. Swift battle ensued and while I lost the cruisers and the sub, Bismark ruled the waves, sinking the RN carrier, a cruiser and a battleship. Bismark then repaired and headed into the channel to take out another RN ship sinking transports and then bombarded a British army corps to obliteration. The Raf bombed Bismark and she returned to port to repair with 1 point leftto her. While in port a sneaky RN cruiser (i think) sneaked through my transports and defending aircraft and blew up my great ship in port. A sad end to a fine ship. But I think I got my money's worth out of her!

I read in a previous post that they may not have been included as they are more tactical in nature and SC deals in the big picture not the little one. If they were to be included the simplest way would be to have "air transports" so that a normal Corps size unit could be picked up and dropped behind enemy lines, so long as its also within the Inf units normal ground range. The air transports could also be used, if sited in a city or port to extend the supply range if things are out in the middle of nowhere (or overseas (hint). These would however have to be expensive, need escorting and be vulnerable to nearbye enemy fighters in either air drop or supply mode or it might muck up play balance.

I'm not sure that the argument for excluding Gort and O'Conner for being tactical commanders holds water when Montgommerie and Rommel are available at the beginning of the game as top line commanders. Rommel was a tactical commander in France and most of the time in Africa was, for the Germans, low level stuff. When it did blow up after El Alamein, Rommel had to play second fiddle to someone else (Kleist or Kesselring was it?)in Tunisia. Rommel only got a really big command in 1944 when he took over the Atlantic Wall and even then still found Rundstedt on top of him. Montgommerie was an opinionated divisional commander in France (admittedly one of the better ones)who got promoted afterwards. When he took over the 8th Army in Egypt it was a rag tag army of defeated men with low morale and in size was nothing like the forces that fought later in Tunisia, Italy and D-Day. In Italy Monty was still just an army commander, with Alexander at the strategic level. So again, why not O'Conner who had the potential to be an outstanding general of the war. Whose to say if the Brits hadn't ignored the greek situation that O'Conner might not have smashed Rommel instead of the other way around. Ans why not Gort, who was one of Britains more established senior generals - and it was a strategic command over the BEF as well as tactical due to the edgy relations with the French and the French lack of leadership? I know I'm arguing a lost cause but its nice to know what people think.

Is it possible to build unit characteristics MODS?, the reason I ask is that it might add more national charatcter to each nations army, such as the massive reliance on artillery units that the Russians used as opposed to other nations.